[PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[Anthony PERARD]

Hi all,

There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put that in a tree:
git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2

Thanks,

-- 
Anthony PERARD

Re: [PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[Ian Campbell]

On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:52 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put that in a tree:
> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2

Based on the above I have no idea whether a freeze exception should be
granted for this, so my default answer is no. I'm not sure what else you
could have expected.

If you think there are changes here which should be in 4.4.0 then please
enumerate all changes included in this merge which have any relation to
Xen and their potential impact on the release. See
http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Roadmap/4.4#Exception_guidelines_for_after_the_code_freeze
for guidance on the sorts of considerations to make.

Ian.

Re: [PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[Anthony PERARD]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:52 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put that in a tree:
> > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2
> 
> Based on the above I have no idea whether a freeze exception should be
> granted for this, so my default answer is no. I'm not sure what else you
> could have expected.
> 
> If you think there are changes here which should be in 4.4.0 then please
> enumerate all changes included in this merge which have any relation to
> Xen and their potential impact on the release.

I have a list the change here that have a potential impact on Xen, with
the ones that I think are quite important at the beginning. Either the
commit title speak for itself or I added a small description on what is
affected.

Fix pc migration from qemu <= 1.5

- Potential compilation issue:
Adjust qapi-visit for python-2.4.3
configure: Explicitly set ARFLAGS so we can build with GNU Make 4.0

- Memory leak:
qapi: fix memleak by adding implict struct functions in dealloc visitor
  qapi is used by qmp, so potential leaks when doing qmp call
qom: Fix memory leak in object_property_set_link()
  same for qom

qdev-monitor: Fix crash when device_add is called with abstract driver
qdev-monitor: Unref device when device_add fails
  those could be a potential issue triggered through device-add qmp
  command

qemu-char: Fix potential out of bounds access to local arrays
  for serial="vc:WxH"
  vc stand for virtual console

audio: honor QEMU_AUDIO_TIMER_PERIOD instead of waking up every *nano* second
  looks like it improve cpu load when playing audio

scsi_target_send_command(): amend stable-1.6 port of the CVE-2013-4344 fix
  if someone use scsi disk

vmdk: Fix vmdk_parse_extents
vmdk: Fix creating big description file
  if someone use a vmdk disk image

qcow2: count_contiguous_clusters and compression
qcow2: fix possible corruption when reading multiple clusters
qcow2: Zero-initialise first cluster for new images
  several qcow2 fixes, a file disk format

virtio-net: only delete bh that existed
virtio-net: fix the memory leak in rxfilter_notify()
  few virtio fixes

rng-egd: offset the point when repeatedly read from the buffer
  looks like this can be used by virtio


I did not list the commit that does not look like a Xen guest can use.
So is this look like patches to take in our tree ? At least the first 7
would be good to take I think (migration fix, memory leaks, qdev fixes).

Regards,

-- 
Anthony PERARD

Re: [PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[Ian Campbell]

On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:35 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:52 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put that in a tree:
> > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2
> > 
> > Based on the above I have no idea whether a freeze exception should be
> > granted for this, so my default answer is no. I'm not sure what else you
> > could have expected.
> > 
> > If you think there are changes here which should be in 4.4.0 then please
> > enumerate all changes included in this merge which have any relation to
> > Xen and their potential impact on the release.
> 
> I have a list the change here that have a potential impact on Xen, with
> the ones that I think are quite important at the beginning. Either the
> commit title speak for itself or I added a small description on what is
> affected.

Thanks but there's not a lot here for me to go on WRT making a decision
on a freeze exception. Did you refer to 
http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Roadmap/4.4#Exception_guidelines_for_after_the_code_freeze
like I said? A freeze exception needs an analysis of benefits and risks,
not the very briefest words you can possibly manage.

Anyway it appears this is a grab bag of things we might want and misc
fixes which are perhaps nice to have, I'm nowhere near comfortable
giving it a blanket exemption based on what you've presented here, or
even of cherry picking what might be the important ones. If you think
any or all of it is actually important for 4.4 please make a proper case
for inclusion, either of the aggregate or of the individual changes.

Ian.

> 
> Fix pc migration from qemu <= 1.5
> 
> - Potential compilation issue:
> Adjust qapi-visit for python-2.4.3
> configure: Explicitly set ARFLAGS so we can build with GNU Make 4.0
> 
> - Memory leak:
> qapi: fix memleak by adding implict struct functions in dealloc visitor
>   qapi is used by qmp, so potential leaks when doing qmp call
> qom: Fix memory leak in object_property_set_link()
>   same for qom
> 
> qdev-monitor: Fix crash when device_add is called with abstract driver
> qdev-monitor: Unref device when device_add fails
>   those could be a potential issue triggered through device-add qmp
>   command
> 
> qemu-char: Fix potential out of bounds access to local arrays
>   for serial="vc:WxH"
>   vc stand for virtual console
> 
> audio: honor QEMU_AUDIO_TIMER_PERIOD instead of waking up every *nano* second
>   looks like it improve cpu load when playing audio
> 
> scsi_target_send_command(): amend stable-1.6 port of the CVE-2013-4344 fix
>   if someone use scsi disk
> 
> vmdk: Fix vmdk_parse_extents
> vmdk: Fix creating big description file
>   if someone use a vmdk disk image
> 
> qcow2: count_contiguous_clusters and compression
> qcow2: fix possible corruption when reading multiple clusters
> qcow2: Zero-initialise first cluster for new images
>   several qcow2 fixes, a file disk format
> 
> virtio-net: only delete bh that existed
> virtio-net: fix the memory leak in rxfilter_notify()
>   few virtio fixes
> 
> rng-egd: offset the point when repeatedly read from the buffer
>   looks like this can be used by virtio
> 
> 
> I did not list the commit that does not look like a Xen guest can use.
> So is this look like patches to take in our tree ? At least the first 7
> would be good to take I think (migration fix, memory leaks, qdev fixes).
> 
> Regards,
> 

Re: [PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:35 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:52 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put that in a tree:
> > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2
> > > 
> > > Based on the above I have no idea whether a freeze exception should be
> > > granted for this, so my default answer is no. I'm not sure what else you
> > > could have expected.
> > > 
> > > If you think there are changes here which should be in 4.4.0 then please
> > > enumerate all changes included in this merge which have any relation to
> > > Xen and their potential impact on the release.
> > 
> > I have a list the change here that have a potential impact on Xen, with
> > the ones that I think are quite important at the beginning. Either the
> > commit title speak for itself or I added a small description on what is
> > affected.
> 
> Thanks but there's not a lot here for me to go on WRT making a decision
> on a freeze exception. Did you refer to 
> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Roadmap/4.4#Exception_guidelines_for_after_the_code_freeze
> like I said? A freeze exception needs an analysis of benefits and risks,
> not the very briefest words you can possibly manage.
> 
> Anyway it appears this is a grab bag of things we might want and misc
> fixes which are perhaps nice to have, I'm nowhere near comfortable
> giving it a blanket exemption based on what you've presented here, or
> even of cherry picking what might be the important ones. If you think
> any or all of it is actually important for 4.4 please make a proper case
> for inclusion, either of the aggregate or of the individual changes.

Anthony, did you simply update the tree by pulling from the upstream 1.6
stable tree? I also assume that you tested at the very least the basic
PV and HVM configurations?

If so, I think we should take everything they have there. If we don't,
I'll propose to do the same for 4.4.1.

Re: [PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:35 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:52 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put that in a tree:
> > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2
> > > > 
> > > > Based on the above I have no idea whether a freeze exception should be
> > > > granted for this, so my default answer is no. I'm not sure what else you
> > > > could have expected.
> > > > 
> > > > If you think there are changes here which should be in 4.4.0 then please
> > > > enumerate all changes included in this merge which have any relation to
> > > > Xen and their potential impact on the release.
> > > 
> > > I have a list the change here that have a potential impact on Xen, with
> > > the ones that I think are quite important at the beginning. Either the
> > > commit title speak for itself or I added a small description on what is
> > > affected.
> > 
> > Thanks but there's not a lot here for me to go on WRT making a decision
> > on a freeze exception. Did you refer to 
> > http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Roadmap/4.4#Exception_guidelines_for_after_the_code_freeze
> > like I said? A freeze exception needs an analysis of benefits and risks,
> > not the very briefest words you can possibly manage.
> > 
> > Anyway it appears this is a grab bag of things we might want and misc
> > fixes which are perhaps nice to have, I'm nowhere near comfortable
> > giving it a blanket exemption based on what you've presented here, or
> > even of cherry picking what might be the important ones. If you think
> > any or all of it is actually important for 4.4 please make a proper case
> > for inclusion, either of the aggregate or of the individual changes.
> 
> Anthony, did you simply update the tree by pulling from the upstream 1.6
> stable tree? I also assume that you tested at the very least the basic
> PV and HVM configurations?
> 
> If so, I think we should take everything they have there. If we don't,
> I'll propose to do the same for 4.4.1.

I realize I have been a bit terse there: the reason is that I think we
should be pulling from QEMU stable trees for the corresponding Xen
stable releases. Their stable backporting policy seems reasonable and
not laxer than ours.

Re: [PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[Anthony PERARD]

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:42:17PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:35 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:52 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put that in a tree:
> > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2
> > > > 
> > > > Based on the above I have no idea whether a freeze exception should be
> > > > granted for this, so my default answer is no. I'm not sure what else you
> > > > could have expected.
> > > > 
> > > > If you think there are changes here which should be in 4.4.0 then please
> > > > enumerate all changes included in this merge which have any relation to
> > > > Xen and their potential impact on the release.
> > > 
> > > I have a list the change here that have a potential impact on Xen, with
> > > the ones that I think are quite important at the beginning. Either the
> > > commit title speak for itself or I added a small description on what is
> > > affected.
> > 
> > Thanks but there's not a lot here for me to go on WRT making a decision
> > on a freeze exception. Did you refer to 
> > http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Roadmap/4.4#Exception_guidelines_for_after_the_code_freeze
> > like I said? A freeze exception needs an analysis of benefits and risks,
> > not the very briefest words you can possibly manage.
> > 
> > Anyway it appears this is a grab bag of things we might want and misc
> > fixes which are perhaps nice to have, I'm nowhere near comfortable
> > giving it a blanket exemption based on what you've presented here, or
> > even of cherry picking what might be the important ones. If you think
> > any or all of it is actually important for 4.4 please make a proper case
> > for inclusion, either of the aggregate or of the individual changes.
> 
> Anthony, did you simply update the tree by pulling from the upstream 1.6
> stable tree?

Yes, a simple merge.

> I also assume that you tested at the very least the basic
> PV and HVM configurations?

:(, no, I haven't try PV. But I did try HVM.

There is one thing that I may want to try, it's migration from the
previous version of Xen. There is one patch that change (fix?) that.

> If so, I think we should take everything they have there. If we don't,
> I'll propose to do the same for 4.4.1.

Ok.

-- 
Anthony PERARD

Re: [PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:42:17PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:35 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:52 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > > There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put that in a tree:
> > > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2
> > > > > 
> > > > > Based on the above I have no idea whether a freeze exception should be
> > > > > granted for this, so my default answer is no. I'm not sure what else you
> > > > > could have expected.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If you think there are changes here which should be in 4.4.0 then please
> > > > > enumerate all changes included in this merge which have any relation to
> > > > > Xen and their potential impact on the release.
> > > > 
> > > > I have a list the change here that have a potential impact on Xen, with
> > > > the ones that I think are quite important at the beginning. Either the
> > > > commit title speak for itself or I added a small description on what is
> > > > affected.
> > > 
> > > Thanks but there's not a lot here for me to go on WRT making a decision
> > > on a freeze exception. Did you refer to 
> > > http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Roadmap/4.4#Exception_guidelines_for_after_the_code_freeze
> > > like I said? A freeze exception needs an analysis of benefits and risks,
> > > not the very briefest words you can possibly manage.
> > > 
> > > Anyway it appears this is a grab bag of things we might want and misc
> > > fixes which are perhaps nice to have, I'm nowhere near comfortable
> > > giving it a blanket exemption based on what you've presented here, or
> > > even of cherry picking what might be the important ones. If you think
> > > any or all of it is actually important for 4.4 please make a proper case
> > > for inclusion, either of the aggregate or of the individual changes.
> > 
> > Anthony, did you simply update the tree by pulling from the upstream 1.6
> > stable tree?
> 
> Yes, a simple merge.
> 
> > I also assume that you tested at the very least the basic
> > PV and HVM configurations?
> 
> :(, no, I haven't try PV. But I did try HVM.
> 
> There is one thing that I may want to try, it's migration from the
> previous version of Xen. There is one patch that change (fix?) that.

Please do and let me know if it works as expected.



> > If so, I think we should take everything they have there. If we don't,
> > I'll propose to do the same for 4.4.1.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> -- 
> Anthony PERARD
> 

Re: [PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[Anthony PERARD]

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:51:42PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:42:17PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:35 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:52 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > > > There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put that in a tree:
> > > > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Based on the above I have no idea whether a freeze exception should be
> > > > > > granted for this, so my default answer is no. I'm not sure what else you
> > > > > > could have expected.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If you think there are changes here which should be in 4.4.0 then please
> > > > > > enumerate all changes included in this merge which have any relation to
> > > > > > Xen and their potential impact on the release.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I have a list the change here that have a potential impact on Xen, with
> > > > > the ones that I think are quite important at the beginning. Either the
> > > > > commit title speak for itself or I added a small description on what is
> > > > > affected.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks but there's not a lot here for me to go on WRT making a decision
> > > > on a freeze exception. Did you refer to 
> > > > http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Roadmap/4.4#Exception_guidelines_for_after_the_code_freeze
> > > > like I said? A freeze exception needs an analysis of benefits and risks,
> > > > not the very briefest words you can possibly manage.
> > > > 
> > > > Anyway it appears this is a grab bag of things we might want and misc
> > > > fixes which are perhaps nice to have, I'm nowhere near comfortable
> > > > giving it a blanket exemption based on what you've presented here, or
> > > > even of cherry picking what might be the important ones. If you think
> > > > any or all of it is actually important for 4.4 please make a proper case
> > > > for inclusion, either of the aggregate or of the individual changes.
> > > 
> > > Anthony, did you simply update the tree by pulling from the upstream 1.6
> > > stable tree?
> > 
> > Yes, a simple merge.
> > 
> > > I also assume that you tested at the very least the basic
> > > PV and HVM configurations?
> > 
> > :(, no, I haven't try PV. But I did try HVM.
> > 
> > There is one thing that I may want to try, it's migration from the
> > previous version of Xen. There is one patch that change (fix?) that.
> 
> Please do and let me know if it works as expected.

I have tryied a pv guest, it does work fine.

I also try a migration (xl save/restore) from Xen 4.3.1 to Xen 4.4 with
both the current qemu-xen tree and with the merge of 1.6.2, but the
migration fail in both cases because of the same error reported by qemu.
(Unknown savevm section or instance '0000:02.0/cirrus_vga' 0). I did not
investigate in that. Might just be a issue with my compile script ...
(using the wrong qemu-xen tree).

-- 
Anthony PERARD

Re: [PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:51:42PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:42:17PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:35 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:52 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > > > > There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put that in a tree:
> > > > > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Based on the above I have no idea whether a freeze exception should be
> > > > > > > granted for this, so my default answer is no. I'm not sure what else you
> > > > > > > could have expected.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If you think there are changes here which should be in 4.4.0 then please
> > > > > > > enumerate all changes included in this merge which have any relation to
> > > > > > > Xen and their potential impact on the release.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I have a list the change here that have a potential impact on Xen, with
> > > > > > the ones that I think are quite important at the beginning. Either the
> > > > > > commit title speak for itself or I added a small description on what is
> > > > > > affected.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks but there's not a lot here for me to go on WRT making a decision
> > > > > on a freeze exception. Did you refer to 
> > > > > http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Roadmap/4.4#Exception_guidelines_for_after_the_code_freeze
> > > > > like I said? A freeze exception needs an analysis of benefits and risks,
> > > > > not the very briefest words you can possibly manage.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Anyway it appears this is a grab bag of things we might want and misc
> > > > > fixes which are perhaps nice to have, I'm nowhere near comfortable
> > > > > giving it a blanket exemption based on what you've presented here, or
> > > > > even of cherry picking what might be the important ones. If you think
> > > > > any or all of it is actually important for 4.4 please make a proper case
> > > > > for inclusion, either of the aggregate or of the individual changes.
> > > > 
> > > > Anthony, did you simply update the tree by pulling from the upstream 1.6
> > > > stable tree?
> > > 
> > > Yes, a simple merge.
> > > 
> > > > I also assume that you tested at the very least the basic
> > > > PV and HVM configurations?
> > > 
> > > :(, no, I haven't try PV. But I did try HVM.
> > > 
> > > There is one thing that I may want to try, it's migration from the
> > > previous version of Xen. There is one patch that change (fix?) that.
> > 
> > Please do and let me know if it works as expected.
> 
> I have tryied a pv guest, it does work fine.
> 
> I also try a migration (xl save/restore) from Xen 4.3.1 to Xen 4.4 with
> both the current qemu-xen tree and with the merge of 1.6.2, but the
> migration fail in both cases because of the same error reported by qemu.
> (Unknown savevm section or instance '0000:02.0/cirrus_vga' 0). I did not
> investigate in that. Might just be a issue with my compile script ...
> (using the wrong qemu-xen tree).

It is important that we identify what is the cause of the problem.
Especially if you think that it could be a "compile script" issue,
because I imagine that if it is, it might invalidate your previous
positive tests too.

Re: [PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[Anthony PERARD]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 01:17:55PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:51:42PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:42:17PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:35 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:52 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put that in a tree:
> > > > > > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Based on the above I have no idea whether a freeze exception should be
> > > > > > > > granted for this, so my default answer is no. I'm not sure what else you
> > > > > > > > could have expected.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > If you think there are changes here which should be in 4.4.0 then please
> > > > > > > > enumerate all changes included in this merge which have any relation to
> > > > > > > > Xen and their potential impact on the release.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I have a list the change here that have a potential impact on Xen, with
> > > > > > > the ones that I think are quite important at the beginning. Either the
> > > > > > > commit title speak for itself or I added a small description on what is
> > > > > > > affected.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks but there's not a lot here for me to go on WRT making a decision
> > > > > > on a freeze exception. Did you refer to 
> > > > > > http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Roadmap/4.4#Exception_guidelines_for_after_the_code_freeze
> > > > > > like I said? A freeze exception needs an analysis of benefits and risks,
> > > > > > not the very briefest words you can possibly manage.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Anyway it appears this is a grab bag of things we might want and misc
> > > > > > fixes which are perhaps nice to have, I'm nowhere near comfortable
> > > > > > giving it a blanket exemption based on what you've presented here, or
> > > > > > even of cherry picking what might be the important ones. If you think
> > > > > > any or all of it is actually important for 4.4 please make a proper case
> > > > > > for inclusion, either of the aggregate or of the individual changes.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Anthony, did you simply update the tree by pulling from the upstream 1.6
> > > > > stable tree?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, a simple merge.
> > > > 
> > > > > I also assume that you tested at the very least the basic
> > > > > PV and HVM configurations?
> > > > 
> > > > :(, no, I haven't try PV. But I did try HVM.
> > > > 
> > > > There is one thing that I may want to try, it's migration from the
> > > > previous version of Xen. There is one patch that change (fix?) that.
> > > 
> > > Please do and let me know if it works as expected.
> > 
> > I have tryied a pv guest, it does work fine.
> > 
> > I also try a migration (xl save/restore) from Xen 4.3.1 to Xen 4.4 with
> > both the current qemu-xen tree and with the merge of 1.6.2, but the
> > migration fail in both cases because of the same error reported by qemu.
> > (Unknown savevm section or instance '0000:02.0/cirrus_vga' 0). I did not
> > investigate in that. Might just be a issue with my compile script ...
> > (using the wrong qemu-xen tree).
> 
> It is important that we identify what is the cause of the problem.
> Especially if you think that it could be a "compile script" issue,
> because I imagine that if it is, it might invalidate your previous
> positive tests too.

I was compiling with always the master branch of qemu-xen. So I had a
Xen 4.3 with QEMU 1.6 instead of 1.3. So it only invalidate the
migration test.

-- 
Anthony PERARD

Re: [PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 01:17:55PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:51:42PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:42:17PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:35 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:52 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put that in a tree:
> > > > > > > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Based on the above I have no idea whether a freeze exception should be
> > > > > > > > > granted for this, so my default answer is no. I'm not sure what else you
> > > > > > > > > could have expected.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > If you think there are changes here which should be in 4.4.0 then please
> > > > > > > > > enumerate all changes included in this merge which have any relation to
> > > > > > > > > Xen and their potential impact on the release.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I have a list the change here that have a potential impact on Xen, with
> > > > > > > > the ones that I think are quite important at the beginning. Either the
> > > > > > > > commit title speak for itself or I added a small description on what is
> > > > > > > > affected.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thanks but there's not a lot here for me to go on WRT making a decision
> > > > > > > on a freeze exception. Did you refer to 
> > > > > > > http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Roadmap/4.4#Exception_guidelines_for_after_the_code_freeze
> > > > > > > like I said? A freeze exception needs an analysis of benefits and risks,
> > > > > > > not the very briefest words you can possibly manage.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Anyway it appears this is a grab bag of things we might want and misc
> > > > > > > fixes which are perhaps nice to have, I'm nowhere near comfortable
> > > > > > > giving it a blanket exemption based on what you've presented here, or
> > > > > > > even of cherry picking what might be the important ones. If you think
> > > > > > > any or all of it is actually important for 4.4 please make a proper case
> > > > > > > for inclusion, either of the aggregate or of the individual changes.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Anthony, did you simply update the tree by pulling from the upstream 1.6
> > > > > > stable tree?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, a simple merge.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I also assume that you tested at the very least the basic
> > > > > > PV and HVM configurations?
> > > > > 
> > > > > :(, no, I haven't try PV. But I did try HVM.
> > > > > 
> > > > > There is one thing that I may want to try, it's migration from the
> > > > > previous version of Xen. There is one patch that change (fix?) that.
> > > > 
> > > > Please do and let me know if it works as expected.
> > > 
> > > I have tryied a pv guest, it does work fine.
> > > 
> > > I also try a migration (xl save/restore) from Xen 4.3.1 to Xen 4.4 with
> > > both the current qemu-xen tree and with the merge of 1.6.2, but the
> > > migration fail in both cases because of the same error reported by qemu.
> > > (Unknown savevm section or instance '0000:02.0/cirrus_vga' 0). I did not
> > > investigate in that. Might just be a issue with my compile script ...
> > > (using the wrong qemu-xen tree).
> > 
> > It is important that we identify what is the cause of the problem.
> > Especially if you think that it could be a "compile script" issue,
> > because I imagine that if it is, it might invalidate your previous
> > positive tests too.
> 
> I was compiling with always the master branch of qemu-xen. So I had a
> Xen 4.3 with QEMU 1.6 instead of 1.3. So it only invalidate the
> migration test.

OK, good. Can you double check how migration from  Xen 4.3 with QEMU 1.3
works?

Re: [PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 01:17:55PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:51:42PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:42:17PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:35 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:52 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put that in a tree:
> > > > > > > > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Based on the above I have no idea whether a freeze exception should be
> > > > > > > > > > granted for this, so my default answer is no. I'm not sure what else you
> > > > > > > > > > could have expected.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > If you think there are changes here which should be in 4.4.0 then please
> > > > > > > > > > enumerate all changes included in this merge which have any relation to
> > > > > > > > > > Xen and their potential impact on the release.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I have a list the change here that have a potential impact on Xen, with
> > > > > > > > > the ones that I think are quite important at the beginning. Either the
> > > > > > > > > commit title speak for itself or I added a small description on what is
> > > > > > > > > affected.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Thanks but there's not a lot here for me to go on WRT making a decision
> > > > > > > > on a freeze exception. Did you refer to 
> > > > > > > > http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Roadmap/4.4#Exception_guidelines_for_after_the_code_freeze
> > > > > > > > like I said? A freeze exception needs an analysis of benefits and risks,
> > > > > > > > not the very briefest words you can possibly manage.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Anyway it appears this is a grab bag of things we might want and misc
> > > > > > > > fixes which are perhaps nice to have, I'm nowhere near comfortable
> > > > > > > > giving it a blanket exemption based on what you've presented here, or
> > > > > > > > even of cherry picking what might be the important ones. If you think
> > > > > > > > any or all of it is actually important for 4.4 please make a proper case
> > > > > > > > for inclusion, either of the aggregate or of the individual changes.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Anthony, did you simply update the tree by pulling from the upstream 1.6
> > > > > > > stable tree?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes, a simple merge.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I also assume that you tested at the very least the basic
> > > > > > > PV and HVM configurations?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > :(, no, I haven't try PV. But I did try HVM.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There is one thing that I may want to try, it's migration from the
> > > > > > previous version of Xen. There is one patch that change (fix?) that.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please do and let me know if it works as expected.
> > > > 
> > > > I have tryied a pv guest, it does work fine.
> > > > 
> > > > I also try a migration (xl save/restore) from Xen 4.3.1 to Xen 4.4 with
> > > > both the current qemu-xen tree and with the merge of 1.6.2, but the
> > > > migration fail in both cases because of the same error reported by qemu.
> > > > (Unknown savevm section or instance '0000:02.0/cirrus_vga' 0). I did not
> > > > investigate in that. Might just be a issue with my compile script ...
> > > > (using the wrong qemu-xen tree).
> > > 
> > > It is important that we identify what is the cause of the problem.
> > > Especially if you think that it could be a "compile script" issue,
> > > because I imagine that if it is, it might invalidate your previous
> > > positive tests too.
> > 
> > I was compiling with always the master branch of qemu-xen. So I had a
> > Xen 4.3 with QEMU 1.6 instead of 1.3. So it only invalidate the
> > migration test.
> 
> OK, good. Can you double check how migration from  Xen 4.3 with QEMU 1.3
> works?

I tested migration myself: although the update fixes a couple of
problems with migration from 1.3, it also introduces a new one, that
fortunately is fixed in QEMU 1.7.0.

I have a branch based on 1.6.2 plus the backported fix from 1.7.0 that
works well, I recommend getting a release exception for it and pushing
it as soon as possible.

Re: [PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[George Dunlap]

On 01/24/2014 07:34 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 01:17:55PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:51:42PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:42:17PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:35 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:52 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put that in a tree:
>>>>>>>>>>>> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2
>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the above I have no idea whether a freeze exception should be
>>>>>>>>>>> granted for this, so my default answer is no. I'm not sure what else you
>>>>>>>>>>> could have expected.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you think there are changes here which should be in 4.4.0 then please
>>>>>>>>>>> enumerate all changes included in this merge which have any relation to
>>>>>>>>>>> Xen and their potential impact on the release.
>>>>>>>>>> I have a list the change here that have a potential impact on Xen, with
>>>>>>>>>> the ones that I think are quite important at the beginning. Either the
>>>>>>>>>> commit title speak for itself or I added a small description on what is
>>>>>>>>>> affected.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks but there's not a lot here for me to go on WRT making a decision
>>>>>>>>> on a freeze exception. Did you refer to
>>>>>>>>> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Roadmap/4.4#Exception_guidelines_for_after_the_code_freeze
>>>>>>>>> like I said? A freeze exception needs an analysis of benefits and risks,
>>>>>>>>> not the very briefest words you can possibly manage.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway it appears this is a grab bag of things we might want and misc
>>>>>>>>> fixes which are perhaps nice to have, I'm nowhere near comfortable
>>>>>>>>> giving it a blanket exemption based on what you've presented here, or
>>>>>>>>> even of cherry picking what might be the important ones. If you think
>>>>>>>>> any or all of it is actually important for 4.4 please make a proper case
>>>>>>>>> for inclusion, either of the aggregate or of the individual changes.
>>>>>>>> Anthony, did you simply update the tree by pulling from the upstream 1.6
>>>>>>>> stable tree?
>>>>>>> Yes, a simple merge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also assume that you tested at the very least the basic
>>>>>>>> PV and HVM configurations?
>>>>>>> :(, no, I haven't try PV. But I did try HVM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is one thing that I may want to try, it's migration from the
>>>>>>> previous version of Xen. There is one patch that change (fix?) that.
>>>>>> Please do and let me know if it works as expected.
>>>>> I have tryied a pv guest, it does work fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also try a migration (xl save/restore) from Xen 4.3.1 to Xen 4.4 with
>>>>> both the current qemu-xen tree and with the merge of 1.6.2, but the
>>>>> migration fail in both cases because of the same error reported by qemu.
>>>>> (Unknown savevm section or instance '0000:02.0/cirrus_vga' 0). I did not
>>>>> investigate in that. Might just be a issue with my compile script ...
>>>>> (using the wrong qemu-xen tree).
>>>> It is important that we identify what is the cause of the problem.
>>>> Especially if you think that it could be a "compile script" issue,
>>>> because I imagine that if it is, it might invalidate your previous
>>>> positive tests too.
>>> I was compiling with always the master branch of qemu-xen. So I had a
>>> Xen 4.3 with QEMU 1.6 instead of 1.3. So it only invalidate the
>>> migration test.
>> OK, good. Can you double check how migration from  Xen 4.3 with QEMU 1.3
>> works?
> I tested migration myself: although the update fixes a couple of
> problems with migration from 1.3, it also introduces a new one, that
> fortunately is fixed in QEMU 1.7.0.
>
> I have a branch based on 1.6.2 plus the backported fix from 1.7.0 that
> works well, I recommend getting a release exception for it and pushing
> it as soon as possible.

Sorry, didn't catch the "I recommend getting a release exception". The 
qemu issues (including the migration one) are definitely the main 
blockers to the release at the moment, so:

Release-acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>